McNelis.biz

Lets get something straight, philosophy and science at one time shared a great deal of traits, both, after all, are done in the pursuit of knowledge and to a degree wisdom. Unfortunately people often tend to confuse different forms of science with different forms of philosophy. A very good example of this is the debate that rages in local school districts across the nation. Should a school teach intelligent design (ID) in biology classes alongside evolution?

John Scalzi at Whatever has some very strong thoughts on the issue on his post, Suffereing the Idiots. Scalzi points to an article suggesting astrology as scientific theory. The crux of the article is that based on Michael Behe’s definition of theory (actual definition here) that astrology could make the cut.

Scalzi starts to scratch the surface, in my opinion, on some other issues with Behe’s argument, most notably that Behe confuses theory with hypothesis. But there is a more fundamental idea, I think, behind this issue. Behe, and many of those in his camp, confuse biological science with metaphysical philosophy. Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a greater being or beings. The 5th grade definition of ID is something like this, if you find a watch in the woods, the watch did not just develop on its own. Something had to create the watch because it has an intelligent design. The universe, the argument states, tends toward chaos, so it is not sound logic that something as intelligently designed as watch could occur naturally in our universe. Then the argument is extended to suggest that life and existence itself follows the same argument, that there is intelligent design to the universe, to life itself, and that it (live, the universe, whatever) would not be possible if something intelligent had not designed it.

A great hypothesis, right? Of course we can’t really test or prove any of it, which is where we get back to Scalzi’s thoughts on how its not really a theory. Even more-so, it is hardly even a scientific hypothesis. Philosophically, I actually kind of like this argument, despite the holes, I mean, if all this shit is intelligent, then the creator would have to be as well, and if thats the case, something had to create the creator, and so on and so forth, and you end up with Aquinas’s cosmological argument (uncaused cause or first cause).

Biology on the other hand, is a science. We can observe, we can experiment, we can actually prove that certain things have happened, do happen, will happen. Biology is a hard science. Certainly there are things that are theory, and there are things that are fact. But when you try to use ID to support a biological argument you are going to end up shooting yourself in the foot. One could possibly make a successful argument to that end, if ID was a deductive argument, but its not, it is a decidedly inductive argument. (Wikipedia’s definitions).

The thing I suppose bothers me is that we, and I say we collectively–as I really don’t like saying it, are allowing faith to overrun science. They don’t need to, they shouldn’t. In the end science and faith are completely capable of coexisting as long as we, as humans, don’t fuck it up by trying to mix the two together.

EDIT: After reading more of the comments at John’s page I found this link which is really quite hilarious. Of course, as I stated above, I don’t think the two are as intertwined as some would like to believe but I digress.

Also, one other important thing I failed to mention, is that this argument that is designed to prove the existence of God does nothing whatsoever to uncover the nature of said Being. Personally, I’m more concerned with the nature of God than whether or not God exists.